Republican Spending Blueprint Contains ?No Detail.?

[BoberFett]

Did anyone really expect anything from the Republicans? The party has proven themselves useless.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Did anyone really expect anything from the Republicans? The party has proven themselves useless.

But it is fun watching them pwn themselves. and reading people here trying to make logic where there is none

 

[LTC8K6]

We didn't get a detailed budget from the Dems at first, either.

It takes quite a bit of time to make a full detailed budget.

It's quite normal to release the general idea first.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, it is detailed policy - not a detailed BUDGET. It does have specific policy in it - have you read it or not? Seems you have not actually read it and have just swallowed the whitehouse propaganda.

It's not even a detailed policy, it's 12 pages of nothing except wishful thinking by Republicans. I've read it, but once again, I give you your revered minority leader:

"Two nights ago, the president said, 'We haven't seen a budget yet out of Republicans.' Well, it's just not true, because here it is, Mr. President," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), waving a blue document in the air.

Well, "here it is!" Or are you incapable of parsing your own party's words?

:roll:

I'm going to give you a second chance at this whole "reading" thing:

?There was some confusion as to what was released on Thursday; that was not our alternative budget,? Ryan said. He termed it ?a broader Republican economic agenda? and said he would unveil the party?s tax-and-spending plan that includes specifics on March 31.

Apologizing for Republican incompetence about a document they themselves mischaracterized? That's pretty damn funny.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: This document is about how they want to do it "differently" than your hero BHO. They are not just sitting back saying "no" - they created this outline of how they think things should be - it's not a "budget" like that moron from the whitehouse was trying to claim and the supposed "news" story furthered. It's not a "budget", and isn't intended to be one - you'd have known that if you actually read the document instead of just lapping up the propaganda coming from the whitehouse.

Let me give you a direct quote:

"Two nights ago, the president said, 'We haven't seen a budget yet out of Republicans.' Well, it's just not true, because here it is, Mr. President," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), waving a blue document in the air.

"Today we're introducing a detailed road-to-recovery plan," he told the reporters. Other than the tax proposal, however, the plan was absent any details. Instead, it hammered the Democratic budget as too expensive.

"Detailed," in Republican-ese, apparently means lacking one single number! And the hilarity ensued.

Yes, it is detailed policy - not a detailed BUDGET. It does have specific policy in it - have you read it or not? Seems you have not actually read it and have just swallowed the whitehouse propaganda.

I've read it. It does not have detailed policy in it, save for offering a 12% tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and modifying a single act. 12 of the 18 pages read as a campaign mailing piece. They do not outline what programs they would cut (except bailots) or how they will lower the deficits after cutting hundreds of billions of dollars out of revenues.

In other words, the entire god damn thing is smoke and mirrors. Maybe the thing on Wednesday will be a better use of my time. I want the 10 minutes of my life I spent reading this thing back Republicans.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: winnar111
What emergency policies? Obama's own people say the recession will end in 2009 and yet FY 2010 has a 1.2 trillion deficit.

My apologies to you for not making my position clearer in that post. I am referring to Dem policies that are longer term than what you are describing.

My Bad.:beer:

Would that be the $800 trillion perpetual deficit through 2019, according to Obama's own people?


Well, I guess if you can so easily flip flop yourself into $1.2 trillion in 2010, halving it sounds like a great idea.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Details are supposed to be announced this Wednesday. However, considering they are suggesting a tax cut of 12% for the wealthiest people in the country, I anticipate massive cuts everywhere except military spending. At least I hope that is what they are planning.

Maybe by next Wednesday they will add to their document something very detailed on not liking volcano monitoring, and Oh, by-the-way: we the GOP still want any version of an economic stimulus package to fail, and we the GOP will work tirelessly towards that end.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: This document is about how they want to do it "differently" than your hero BHO. They are not just sitting back saying "no" - they created this outline of how they think things should be - it's not a "budget" like that moron from the whitehouse was trying to claim and the supposed "news" story furthered. It's not a "budget", and isn't intended to be one - you'd have known that if you actually read the document instead of just lapping up the propaganda coming from the whitehouse.

Let me give you a direct quote:

"Two nights ago, the president said, 'We haven't seen a budget yet out of Republicans.' Well, it's just not true, because here it is, Mr. President," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), waving a blue document in the air.

"Today we're introducing a detailed road-to-recovery plan," he told the reporters. Other than the tax proposal, however, the plan was absent any details. Instead, it hammered the Democratic budget as too expensive.

"Detailed," in Republican-ese, apparently means lacking one single number! And the hilarity ensued.

Yes, it is detailed policy - not a detailed BUDGET. It does have specific policy in it - have you read it or not? Seems you have not actually read it and have just swallowed the whitehouse propaganda.

I've read it. It does not have detailed policy in it, save for offering a 12% tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and modifying a single act. 12 of the 18 pages read as a campaign mailing piece. They do not outline what programs they would cut (except bailots) or how they will lower the deficits after cutting hundreds of billions of dollars out of revenues.

In other words, the entire god damn thing is smoke and mirrors. Maybe the thing on Wednesday will be a better use of my time. I want the 10 minutes of my life I spent reading this thing back Republicans.

Sounds like Reaganonmics or Supply side economics.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama's budget was easy to come up with.. take our deficit and triple it.. done.. multiply times number of years.

And here is the response from the minority party:

Rep. Paul Ryan Concedes GOP Alternative Budget Would Increase The Deficit ?A Lot?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, has said he will release yet another budget proposal, but this time with more specifics.

Though Ryan has been most critical of the deficit impact of Obama?s budget, he has been unable to assess the deficit impact of his own budget. After being repeatedly asked this weekend by Bloomberg?s Al Hunt about ?how large? the deficit would be under the Republican plan, Ryan finally respond, ?A lot?:

HUNT: But the Obama budget deficit is $1.4 trillion. How, roughly, how large will yours be?

RYAN: Their budget deficit is $1.8 trillion. [?]

HUNT: Gimme an idea of how large yours will be?

RYAN: A lot. Let?s put it that way.

HUNT: Pardon me?

RYAN: Now I can?t give you the specific numbers because we?re still waiting for some numbers back from CBO. But clearly we don?t want to have this kind of run up of deficits and debt.

Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed the income tax provisions of the GOP alternative budget and concluded that they would cost $300 billion more annually than the President?s income tax plans.

That sounds promising. You can watch the clip yourself in full if you're a real sucker for punishment.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: yllus
Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed the income tax provisions of the GOP alternative budget and concluded that they would cost $300 billion more annually than the President?s income tax plans.

D'oh! As expected, the party of bad ideas, the GOP, comes out with a "budget proposal" that costs more than Obama's proposal all the while criticizing Obama's budget proposal for spending too much.

Oh FFS, you can't make this shit up! :laugh:

 

[MikeMike]

a lot now means more?

wow.

 

[JSt0rm]

ohh man you cant make this shit up lmao. I feel sorry for you neocons lol. ahhh funny.


lulz didnt read dealmonkeys post 2- you cant make this shit up within 3 posts= true

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: yllus
Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed the income tax provisions of the GOP alternative budget and concluded that they would cost $300 billion more annually than the President?s income tax plans.

D'oh! As expected, the party of bad ideas, the GOP, comes out with a "budget proposal" that costs more than Obama's proposal all the while criticizing Obama's budget proposal for spending too much.

Oh FFS, you can't make this shit up! :laugh:

Just following the presidents lead of cutting the budget by expanding, what is the problem?
Welcome to age of big govt. Where big bloated govt is lean and cutting is increasing.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Just following the presidents lead of cutting the budget by expanding, what is the problem?
Welcome to age of big govt. Where big bloated govt is lean and cutting is increasing.

shhh. You had me at hello.

 

[Vic]

Reactionaries - by definition - never have any solutions or even constructive ideas, just criticisms of other peoples' ideas.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Let me just say this one thing: If you're going to oppose Obama's budget proposal and bash Congressional Democrats for spending too much, then for the love of god, come up with an alternate plan with actual details.

Why? Your heroes aren't going to look at it anyway.

Did dmcowen674 come back as a far right Republican?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: yllus
Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed the income tax provisions of the GOP alternative budget and concluded that they would cost $300 billion more annually than the President?s income tax plans.

D'oh! As expected, the party of bad ideas, the GOP, comes out with a "budget proposal" that costs more than Obama's proposal all the while criticizing Obama's budget proposal for spending too much.

Oh FFS, you can't make this shit up! :laugh:

You're either mis-reading it, or mis-characterizing it.

It says the income tax provisions costs $300B more. That's NOT spending.

It means the Repub plan either (1) cuts taxes more or (2) raises taxes less.

Fern

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: yllus
Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed the income tax provisions of the GOP alternative budget and concluded that they would cost $300 billion more annually than the President?s income tax plans.

D'oh! As expected, the party of bad ideas, the GOP, comes out with a "budget proposal" that costs more than Obama's proposal all the while criticizing Obama's budget proposal for spending too much.

Oh FFS, you can't make this shit up! :laugh:

You're either mis-reading it, or mis-characterizing it.

It says the income tax provisions costs $300B more. That's NOT spending.

It means the Repub plan either (1) cuts taxes more or (2) raises taxes less.

Fern

I think it means that the deficit under the GOP plan would be $300 billion more than Mr Obama's budget.

I will wait for the GOP to give more details about their plan before I make any judgements.

 

[jonks]

Nate Silver provides an unusually in-depth analysis to the Republican alternative plan:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...-road-to-recovery.html

 

[frostedflakes]

CTJ is a liberal organization, so I'd take their analysis of the new budget plan with a pinch of salt. And as Fern pointed out, the Republican budget doesn't necessarily cost $300 billion more, it's just bringing in $300 billion less in taxes in 2011. If (and that's a big if) spending is significantly less than Obama's proposed budgets over the next decade then it could cost us less money. I honestly doubt the Republicans have found hundreds of billions in spending cuts, though, but I guess we'll see when more details are revealed.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
CTJ is a liberal organization, so I'd take their analysis of the new budget plan with a pinch of salt. And as Fern pointed out, the Republican budget doesn't necessarily cost $300 billion more, it's just bringing in $300 billion less in taxes in 2011. If (and that's a big if) spending is significantly less than Obama's proposed budgets over the next decade then it could cost us less money. I honestly doubt the Republicans have found hundreds of billions in spending cuts, though, but I guess we'll see when more details are revealed.

House GOP Leaders? Budget Plan

1?The Republican Road to Recovery,? March 26, 2009
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/b...road-to-recovery-final
March 27, 2009
Contact: Steve Wamhoff
(202) 299-1066 x33
House GOP Leaders? Budget Plan
Poor Pay More and Rich Pay Less Under GOP Plan that Costs $300
Billion Annually More than the President?s Plan
Yesterday, the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives released the
outlines of a tax and spending plan1 that they argue is a more fiscally responsible alternative to
the budget outline proposed by President Obama and the similar budget resolutions working
their way through the House and Senate.
Comparing the income tax proposals in the House GOP plan to the income tax proposals in the
President?s plan, we find that:
# Over a fourth of taxpayers, mostly low-income families, would pay more in taxes under
the House GOP plan than they would under the President?s plan.
# The richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the
House GOP plan than they would under the President?s plan.
# The income tax proposals in the House GOP plan, which is presented as a fiscally
responsible alternative to the President?s plan, would cost over $300 billion more than
the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone.

That is the first part of the article. I did not paste the entire article because the tables do not copy and paste well. I do recommend reading the whole article it is a good read.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
CTJ is a liberal organization, so I'd take their analysis of the new budget plan with a pinch of salt. And as Fern pointed out, the Republican budget doesn't necessarily cost $300 billion more, it's just bringing in $300 billion less in taxes in 2011. If (and that's a big if) spending is significantly less than Obama's proposed budgets over the next decade then it could cost us less money. I honestly doubt the Republicans have found hundreds of billions in spending cuts, though, but I guess we'll see when more details are revealed.

House GOP Leaders? Budget Plan

1?The Republican Road to Recovery,? March 26, 2009
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/b...road-to-recovery-final
March 27, 2009
Contact: Steve Wamhoff
(202) 299-1066 x33
House GOP Leaders? Budget Plan
Poor Pay More and Rich Pay Less Under GOP Plan that Costs $300
Billion Annually More than the President?s Plan
Yesterday, the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives released the
outlines of a tax and spending plan1 that they argue is a more fiscally responsible alternative to
the budget outline proposed by President Obama and the similar budget resolutions working
their way through the House and Senate.
Comparing the income tax proposals in the House GOP plan to the income tax proposals in the
President?s plan, we find that:
# Over a fourth of taxpayers, mostly low-income families, would pay more in taxes under
the House GOP plan than they would under the President?s plan.
# The richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the
House GOP plan than they would under the President?s plan.
# The income tax proposals in the House GOP plan, which is presented as a fiscally
responsible alternative to the President?s plan, would cost over $300 billion more than
the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone.

That is the first part of the article. I did not paste the entire article because the tables do not copy and paste well. I do recommend reading the whole article it is a good read.

I am wondering how he figures the poor pay more when the republican income tax outline reads like this.

Republicans propose a simple and fair tax code with a
marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10
percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter, with a
generous standard deduction and personal exemption.

Currently only the lowest ring pay that much. I guess we will need more information on what progressive system republicans propose. But if a person making 100K is paying 10% a person on the lowest ring would essentially pay nothing. That is quite an increase in the progressiveness of our tax system and I question how the poor pay more and the rich pay less.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
The detailed plan is supposed to be revealed on March 31st...

And yet the GOP is hammering away with zero alternative plan, today. Well, for a while now, actually. Perhaps they should have saved their faux outrage until April 1st?

:laugh:

Again, doesn't matter if they have a totally different plan. Opposing WRONG policy can be had without an opposing policy. You think you libs will ever get that through your heads?

It is VERY wrong to spend money on americans by improving healthcare, infrastructure, alt energy, and education! War and death ONLY!!!

Yeah, because that's exactly what the policy is... :roll: I swear you people are so blinded by "hopenchange" you've lost any last semblance of rationality.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
CTJ is a liberal organization, so I'd take their analysis of the new budget plan with a pinch of salt. And as Fern pointed out, the Republican budget doesn't necessarily cost $300 billion more, it's just bringing in $300 billion less in taxes in 2011. If (and that's a big if) spending is significantly less than Obama's proposed budgets over the next decade then it could cost us less money. I honestly doubt the Republicans have found hundreds of billions in spending cuts, though, but I guess we'll see when more details are revealed.

House GOP Leaders? Budget Plan

1?The Republican Road to Recovery,? March 26, 2009
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/b...road-to-recovery-final
March 27, 2009
Contact: Steve Wamhoff
(202) 299-1066 x33
House GOP Leaders? Budget Plan
Poor Pay More and Rich Pay Less Under GOP Plan that Costs $300
Billion Annually More than the President?s Plan
Yesterday, the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives released the
outlines of a tax and spending plan1 that they argue is a more fiscally responsible alternative to
the budget outline proposed by President Obama and the similar budget resolutions working
their way through the House and Senate.
Comparing the income tax proposals in the House GOP plan to the income tax proposals in the
President?s plan, we find that:
# Over a fourth of taxpayers, mostly low-income families, would pay more in taxes under
the House GOP plan than they would under the President?s plan.
# The richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the
House GOP plan than they would under the President?s plan.
# The income tax proposals in the House GOP plan, which is presented as a fiscally
responsible alternative to the President?s plan, would cost over $300 billion more than
the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone.

That is the first part of the article. I did not paste the entire article because the tables do not copy and paste well. I do recommend reading the whole article it is a good read.

I am wondering how he figures the poor pay more when the republican income tax outline reads like this.

Republicans propose a simple and fair tax code with a
marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10
percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter, with a
generous standard deduction and personal exemption.

Currently only the lowest ring pay that much. I guess we will need more information on what progressive system republicans propose. But if a person making 100K is paying 10% a person on the lowest ring would essentially pay nothing. That is quite an increase in the progressiveness of our tax system and I question how the poor pay more and the rich pay less.

Click the link. It has a table that predicts taxes for different incomes under the proposed GOP plan.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Click the link. It has a table that predicts taxes for different incomes under the proposed GOP plan.

I did and he is making many assumptions. Which I cant blame him because what the GOP has so far is an outline. But those assumptions are where he derives his opinion. I think for instance on the biggest item(tax table realignment) he is making an assumption it will be a flat tax from 0-100k. I think they will make it progressive. Either way the bottom 80% of people should see a nice reduction in taxes, including the working poor if my assumption that people in the current lowest bracket see a 0% federal rate.